Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The appeal was beard fully by Panchapagesa Sastri J. who recorded his findings on the several questions of fact which were necessary for disposed of the appeal and the memorandum of objections. He however thought it was desirable that the appeal should be finally disposed of by a Division Bench, because there were conflicting decisions of single Judges of this Court on a question of law which was very material for the disposal of the appeal. The appeal and the memorandum of cross objections have therefore been placed before this Bench for final disposal. Before us counsel very properly did not attack the correctness of the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Judge on a discussion of the relevant evidence relating to them. The arguments were confined to the question of law which arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiff (the appellant) is the Maharajah of Par-lakiniedi. The contesting defendants are lnamdars who have been held to be entitled to an inam of the extent of 461 acres 94 cents in the village of Maradikottah. On 21-1-1933, Government issued a notification in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 17(a), Madras Survey and Boundaries Act of 1923 directing the survey of certain unsurveyed plots in villages specified in the list set out in the notification which were part of the estate of Parlakimedi. The Government also directed under Section 164(l), Madras Estates Land Act, the preparation of a record of rights for the same. In continuation of this notification, another notification was issued (EX. p. 99) on 1-8 1983 intimating that the survey operations of the unreserved waste blocks in certain villages in the estate would commence in the mouth of March 1933. The notification contained the following further provision, Every person claiming to be interested in such lands as registered holder or otherwise should attend either in person or by agent at the time and place specified and from time to time thereafter when called upon for the purpose of pointing out boundaries and supplying information in connection therewith."

Kuddaba was one of the villages mentioned in the notification. It is common ground that areas comprised in certain block numbers originally forming part of the village of Maradikottah which adjoined the village of Kuddaba were included in and surveyed as part of the village of Kuddaba, ad- mittedly a village in the estate. Maradikpotta was itself an unenfranehised in am village within the ambit of Parlakimedi estate, but certainly not forming part of the estate. The block numbers which were so included in Kuddaba, though they were according to the block survey surveyed as within the geographical limits of Maradikotta, and 83. On 16-8-1936, there was a notification under Section 13, Madras Survey and Boundaries Act of 1928 giving notice that the survey of the jeroyati blocks in the villages of the Parlakimedi estate mentioned in the notification was completed. It is useful to set out the exact language of the notice which follows the language of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act.

"1. Notice is hereby given under Section 13, Madras Surrey and Boundaries Ant, VIII [8] of 1923, that the survey of jerayati block in the undermentioned villages of the Parlakimedi estate, Parlakimedi taluk is now complete, 8. Unless the survey hereby notified is modified by a decree of a civil Court under the provisions Section 14 of the same Act, the record of the survey shall be conclusive proof that the boundaries determined and recorded therein, have been correctly determined and recorded."

We agree with respect) with these observations. In the present case, it is obvious that the survey officer was not concerned with fixing the boundary between the villages of Kuddaba and Maradikota. As we have already pointed out earlier in this judgment there was only a limited survey of the unsurveyed blocks of the villages in the estate. There was no notification under Section 5 of the Act which must; be invoiced for directing a survey between estate villages and villages not forming part of the estate Maradikota, as admitted by the plaintiff himself in his plaint, is an enfranchised inam village and though it may be within the geographical ambit of Parlakimedi zamindari, it must be deemed to be a non-estate land for the purpose of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. There was, therefore, no question of any boundary between the two villages. There is no question of any survey of Maradikota village itself. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that any order of the survey officer can affect the rights of the defendants in the case. The real question, as pointed out by the learned Judge, Panchapagesa Sastri J. is whether the particular extents of land form part of the inam of the defendants or are they part of the jeroyati lands of the zamindar. If the finding which we accept is that these extents form part of the defendants' inam, it really does not matter to the defendants whether the lands are shown in any survey as lying within one village or the other village. We agree with the learned Judge that the plaintiff cannot rely upon the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act in support of his claim to the properties which have now been found to belong to the defendants.